Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: Is space itself really expanding?

  1. #1 Is space itself really expanding? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7
    What are the final proofs that makes scientists think that space itself is expanding? what tells us that galaxies aren't just moving away from each other in cause of a giant explosion that happened in about 13,7b years ago? like in firetruck sound example of redshift, the space itself between me and firetruck isn't contracting or expanding, but the truck is passing me by.

    what really proves that time was born in big bang? as far as i've understood, its just a assumption coming from the idea that universe was born in that big explosion and nothing could ever exist before it.

    every proof that ive heard so far could equally match to the idea that big bang didnt create anything - something bigger with more matter in it existed before and big bang was just an explosion inside way bigger, maybe constant, the real universe.

    I might have understood scientist wrong, but i gotta ask this because so far i cant fully come up with the normal big bang theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuntoter View Post
    What are the final proofs that makes scientists think that space itself is expanding? what tells us that galaxies aren't just moving away from each other in cause of a giant explosion that happened in about 13,7b years ago? like in firetruck sound example of redshift, the space itself between me and firetruck isn't contracting or expanding, but the truck is passing me by.

    what really proves that time was born in big bang? as far as i've understood, its just a assumption coming from the idea that universe was born in that big explosion and nothing could ever exist before it.

    every proof that ive heard so far could equally match to the idea that big bang didnt create anything - something bigger with more matter in it existed before and big bang was just an explosion inside way bigger, maybe constant, the real universe.

    I might have understood scientist wrong, but i gotta ask this because so far i cant fully come up with the normal big bang theory.
    Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The above may help.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuntoter View Post
    What are the final proofs that makes scientists think that space itself is expanding? what tells us that galaxies aren't just moving away from each other in cause of a giant explosion that happened in about 13,7b years ago? like in firetruck sound example of redshift, the space itself between me and firetruck isn't contracting or expanding, but the truck is passing me by.

    what really proves that time was born in big bang? as far as i've understood, its just a assumption coming from the idea that universe was born in that big explosion and nothing could ever exist before i

    every proof that ive heard so far could equally match to the idea that big bang didnt create anything - something bigger with more matter in it existed before and big bang was just an explosion inside way bigger, maybe constant, the real universe.

    I might have understood scientist wrong, but i gotta ask this because so far i cant fully come up with the normal big bang theory.

    What the BB scenario has against galaxies actually moving away from each other has to do with special relativity and the speed of light. If galaxies were actually moving away from each other we would have to explain real motion as having a background field of some kind or some reference point to measure this motion. In Special Relativity motion is instead relative but as to the universe as a whole there seemingly would be no reference frame to measure galactic motion. If the motion was considered real then the speed of light could be violated at large relative distances. Instead they have proposed that space is expanding..

    Whether time was born at the beginning of the universe is not just a BB proposal either. There are other lesser known cosmological models that also assert that the universe had a beginning to it and that that beginning was the start of change which defines time.

    Before the BB is a different question. Even if you believe there was a BB in the first place, you still might not believe that the BB was the beginning of the universe. Alternative ideas have been asserted concerning alternative versions of the BB model. Theorists like Stephen Hawking, for example, has made such a proposal which includes multi-verses with a possibility of a seemingly infinite beginning. Regardless of what you believe concerning the beginning of the universe there are a great many versions of the BB model as well as other cosmological models that propose both finite and infinite beginnings for the universe. There seemingly never could be evidence that could somehow prove how or when the universe really started, or even if that beginning time was a finite start of time, or an infinite one.
    Last edited by forrest noble; April 9th, 2012 at 04:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    In my opinion

    Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.

    Universe is expanding, but Space is not expanding.
    Refer to below link.

    Space Doesn’t Expanding and Center of the Universe.(This is hypothesis)
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/27878-space-doesnt-expand-center-universe.html

    After the expansion of universe was observed in the 1920s, physicists and astronomers introduced the concept of "space expands" into physics and many observations and research results were used based on this.

    However, we can't explain why space expands and why it has a specific velocity and is no observations of expansion of space.

    This study proves that the expansion of the universe and Hubble's law doesn't result from the expansion of space, but is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space.

    We could confirm that Hubble's law was always valid when the effect of acceleration was smaller than initial velocity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    In my opinion

    Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.

    Universe is expanding, but Space is not expanding.
    Refer to below link.

    Space Doesn’t Expanding and Center of the Universe.(This is hypothesis)
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/27878-space-doesnt-expand-center-universe.html

    After the expansion of universe was observed in the 1920s, physicists and astronomers introduced the concept of "space expands" into physics and many observations and research results were used based on this.

    However, we can't explain why space expands and why it has a specific velocity and is no observations of expansion of space.

    This study proves that the expansion of the universe and Hubble's law doesn't result from the expansion of space, but is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space.

    We could confirm that Hubble's law was always valid when the effect of acceleration was smaller than initial velocity.
    1. The universe does not have a center, regardless of whether space expands or not. See the other thread.
    2. Are you saying that galaxies very far away from us move close to the speed of light ? Explain please why that would be the case, and why all of them move away from us, instead of them all moving in different directions. What accelerated them ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    One thing to note is that general relativity predicted the expansion (or contraction) of space. So when a variety of observations were made which appear to confirm this, it was just yet more confirmation of GR.

    As to where everything (including time) came from - we don't know. The big bang theory doesn't say everything came from nothing. (Although that is what you get if you extrapolate back to t=0 but that may not be a valid thing to do.)

    Finally, science doesn't deal in "final proofs", just better and better confirmation (or total refutation).

    p.s. ignore icarus, he has his own personal theories which dont match science/reality.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Don't worry you are not alone, there are almost countless versions of the BB model as well as countless cosmological models that totally disagree with every aspect of the BB model.
    None of which match our observations as well as the BB model, which is why we use the BB model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    However, we can't explain why space expands and why it has a specific velocity and is no observations of expansion of space.
    "Expanding space" is an analogy. We don't think empty space literally expands. This is what happens if someone mistakes the analogy for the model itself, and imbues empty space with intrinsic properties not described by General Relativity.

    Have you read the (entirely mainstream) paper below?

    [0707.0380] Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

    While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I'm getting sick and tired, both here and in other forums, of the naysayers who pop up every time an interested party asks a question about the Big-Bang model, saying "BB is wrong! BB is wrong!"

    When someone asks a question about the STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL, please let us answer it in the context of that model.

    Do you guys have to pollute EVERY thread with your agenda?
    Markus Hanke and MrMojo1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I'm getting sick and tired, both here and in other forums, of the naysayers who pop up every time an interested party asks a question about the Big-Bang model, saying "BB is wrong! BB is wrong!"

    When someone asks a question about the STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL, please let us answer it in the context of that model.

    Do you guys have to pollute EVERY thread with your agenda?
    I wholeheartedly agree with you SpeedFreek.
    These things seem to go around in circles - when I first came on here it was all about "Relativity is Wrong", then came "Push Gravity", and now it's the BB model. Next we will be back to relativity again.
    It's a never ending procession of crackpots
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I'm getting sick and tired, both here and in other forums, of the naysayers who pop up every time an interested party asks a question about the Big-Bang model, saying "BB is wrong! BB is wrong!"

    When someone asks a question about the STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL, please let us answer it in the context of that model.

    Do you guys have to pollute EVERY thread with your agenda?
    Absolutely agree. I believe you will find posts in which I defend the Big Bang model. You will be hard pressed to find one in which I express my distaste for it, since a) the universe doesn't care whether or not I like the way it operates b) my objections to it are philosophical, not scientific; and therefore, as the theory which has the best scientific evidence supporting it, it is the theory which should be supported until and unless something better shows up. The nonsense we get from the nay-sayers is assuredly not 'better'.
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It's a never ending procession of crackpots
    Oh, they are not all crackpots! Some of them do have valid objections, but until we have an alternative model that either explains all current observations in a simpler way, or explains more observations than the current model (i.e. makes new predictions we can test for), there is little point sullying threads where interested amateurs are asking questions (about the how the current model explains things) with these alternative models.

    This thread is basically asking what "proofs" we have for the nature of the Big-Bang expansion. It is a very big question, with a very big complicated answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    This thread is basically asking what "proofs" we have for the nature of the Big-Bang expansion. It is a very big question, with a very big complicated answer.
    Agreed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I'm getting sick and tired, both here and in other forums, of the naysayers who pop up every time an interested party asks a question about the Big-Bang model, saying "BB is wrong! BB is wrong!"

    When someone asks a question about the STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL, please let us answer it in the context of that model.

    Do you guys have to pollute EVERY thread with your agenda?
    well as you can see I am asking for the proof, not saying that BB theory is wrong. i've read few books and watched a whole bunch of documentaries about universe, and haven't seen a proof that tells me that everything here started back then. I dont think that i know more than physicists and thats why im asking why they believe what they do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    One thing to note is that general relativity predicted the expansion (or contraction) of space. So when a variety of observations were made which appear to confirm this, it was just yet more confirmation of GR.

    As to where everything (including time) came from - we don't know. The big bang theory doesn't say everything came from nothing. (Although that is what you get if you extrapolate back to t=0 but that may not be a valid thing to do.)

    Finally, science doesn't deal in "final proofs", just better and better confirmation (or total refutation).

    p.s. ignore icarus, he has his own personal theories which dont match science/reality.
    General Relativity predicted the contraction, or maintaining of space. An alteration is required to predict the expansion of space, and that is to reverse the cosmological constant to get -1.

    The common explanation...
    Einstein was convinced the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Yet his theory of general relativity implied that gravity from all the matter in the universe should cause it to contract. So he introduced the idea of a cosmological constant, a repulsive force that canceled out the contraction. He later discarded the in large part because astronomerEdwin Hubble discovered that the universe was in fact expanding and not static.
    So out of 3 choices...

    Contracting
    Static
    Expanding

    Einstein picked the only two that were wrong. Which is the worst case scenario.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; April 9th, 2012 at 10:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    General Relativity predicted the contraction, or maintaining of space. An alteration is required to predict the expansion of space, and that is to reverse the cosmological constant to get -1.
    Completely wrong. The cosmological constant needs to be positive in order to create a negative pressure due to a non-vanishing vaccuum energy density, resulting in an accelerating expansion of empty space; in any case its absolute value is not 1, but rather on the order of 10^(-122) in order to be compatible with observation :

    Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Very disappointing basic mistake made by someone who so openly proclaims to be a genius !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Guys, the OP asked a question relating to the currently accepted theories. Stop posting alternative ideas or reasons why you think the BB model is wrong when none is asked for. Any posters disregarding this will be suspended for a few days without further notice. I hope that is clear. This is getting out of hand.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    General Relativity predicted the contraction, or maintaining of space. An alteration is required to predict the expansion of space, and that is to reverse the cosmological constant to get -1.
    Completely wrong. The cosmological constant needs to be positive in order to create a negative pressure due to a non-vanishing vaccuum energy density, resulting in an accelerating expansion of empty space; in any case its absolute value is not 1, but rather on the order of 10^(-122) in order to be compatible with observation :

    Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Very disappointing basic mistake made by someone who so openly proclaims to be a genius !
    My genius used the quote from science, because it's a science thread. I cannot be a genius in a science thread. Else I would reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    187
    "What we find is everything is very consistent with Einstein's theory of general relativity, coupled with the cosmological constant that he put into his equations. He put it in originally to make the Universe static, and then took it out.
    "But if we put constant in with the opposite sign, we can get acceleration. And if we do that, we find equations that are perfectly consistent with what we're seeing."
    BBC News - Survey gets a grip on dark energy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Pincho is gone.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuntoter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I'm getting sick and tired, both here and in other forums, of the naysayers who pop up every time an interested party asks a question about the Big-Bang model, saying "BB is wrong! BB is wrong!"

    When someone asks a question about the STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL, please let us answer it in the context of that model.

    Do you guys have to pollute EVERY thread with your agenda?
    well as you can see I am asking for the proof, not saying that BB theory is wrong. i've read few books and watched a whole bunch of documentaries about universe, and haven't seen a proof that tells me that everything here started back then. I dont think that i know more than physicists and thats why im asking why they believe what they do.
    I have no problems at all with your questions. It was the answers some were giving I was objecting to.

    I'm not sure if you have a problem with understanding the nature of the expansion of the universe, and are looking for evidence of it (have a look here - http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html), or are looking for evidence for the Big-Bang model in general, in which case you could look through the article l link below and come back with any questions about a specific aspect of it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Pincho is gone.
    Thank you Kalster. It was an inevitable outcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Us shrinking or space expanding?
    By PetTastic in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 281
    Last Post: March 16th, 2012, 06:29 PM
  2. Is the universe expanding in time and extending in space?
    By mico in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 04:33 AM
  3. expanding
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 07:21 PM
  4. Expanding of space within solar system
    By sak in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 1st, 2008, 07:53 AM
  5. Time expanding with space?
    By BumFluff in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 11th, 2008, 08:07 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •